426

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-dark-tower-600x889.jpg

"You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

I wanted to love this so hard. I rooted for it when the entire internet seemed determined to rise up in hatred years before it came out. I was genuinely thrilled by the first trailer. Even when the reviews broke yesterday, I was hoping against hope it would somehow be good.

I was in actual physical discomfort throughout this movie's ninety minutes from how bad it was. Absolutely nothing good from the books is here. To borrow Dorkman's analogy, someone started calling this movie The Dark Tower and stuck in characters we know were in a series called The Dark Tower, but it's no more The Dark Tower than a shitty fan trailer is.

What makes it so much worse is how this thing completely fucking wasted its cast. We were never gonna get a better Roland than Idris Elba or Flagg than Matthew McConaughey, and the filmmakers fucking blew it. And it doesn't just apply to the two leads. Remember the awesome crazy weirdo charismatic blonde wife from Mad Max: Fury Road? She's in here, but it might as well be a random extra playing her character for all the impact she's allowed to have. The characters are all nothings, the script seems like it was assembled by a computer, and Mid-World has all the vibrancy and life of a screensaver.

I can't decide whether this or Beauty and the Beast is my least favorite entry in what has otherwise been a damn fine year for film. What a joke.

427

(58 replies, posted in Episodes)

What the hell?! XKCD ripped off DiF! tongue

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/eclipse_flights.png

428

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://cdn1-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/valerian-and-the-city-of-a-thousand-planets/valerianposter.jpg

This movie is an utter delight. It's like GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY on LSD and possesses none of that film's lazy cynicism. It's frequently a complete mess, but there's so much invention and craft and pure joy on display here.

Also, it's an indie movie that Luc Besson, through sheer persistence, managed to build up an $180 million dollar budget for. Help the guy out. Go see this thing.

429

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/We-Need-to-Talk-About-Kevin-Movie-Review-2.jpg

They need to make some sort of trilogy boxset of this, Eraserhead, and Rosemary's Baby for people who never, ever want to have kids. *raises hand* Good Lord.

If there's one flaw here it's that the titular character is a bit too cartoonishly evil. But as a portrait of grief and a devastating tearing-down of the mandatory love we're supposed to feel for our children, it's absolutely brilliant. We don't deserve Tilda Swinton. I watched this to gear up for Ramsay's upcoming You Were Never Really Here, for which my man Joaquin got Best Actor at Cannes, and now I'm even more stoked for that film.

430

(14 replies, posted in Episodes)

Just got out of WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Yeah. Give Andy Serkis a goddamn Best Actor nomination. Don't get me wrong, he was great in the previous two as well, but his performance in this film is on a whole other level. And that is *his face* on Caesar.

I'm pretty sure Fox will be pushing for this to happen, and I wish them success. (Also, we basically have a lock for this year's Best VFX winner. No other film in the next five months is even gonna come close.)

"What Football Will Look Like in the Future"

- - - - - - - - - -

DON'T READ THIS UNTIL YOU'VE READ THE LINK

SPOILER Show
Apologies for the vague thread title, but I didn't want to spoil anything about this so I couldn't just throw it in the Space Nerds thread.

I'm almost disappointed that this is apparently a continuing story, because it works perfectly on its own right now. Aagh, it's so cool.

432

(449 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Jesus Christ, Deakins had better win an Oscar for this. At this point unless they severely fuck up the story I'm on board for the visuals alone. Well, as on board as I can be while simultaneously maintaining this movie probably shouldn't be a thing.

433

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://s3.birthmoviesdeath.com/images/made/FREE_FIRE_1200x1600-680x907_1200_1601_81_s.jpg

Reservoir Dogs on coke, and with one hell of a sense of humor. This one's a fucking blast to watch with an audience.

434

(449 replies, posted in Off Topic)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Cinematography on fucking point.

435

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, sorry, I've kinda gotten burned out on talking about SW on the Internet so I'd been skimming the R1 posts. Retroactive humor appreciation!

436

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not? Treadwell as presented in the film is wholly compelling to me. And you're not necessarily supposed to care about the bears as individuals--the whole point Herzog is making is that where Treadwell sees personality he sees indifference and chaos. We get plenty of "Nature is friendly and fun!" perspective from Treadwell's interactions with the foxes and such, but there's no way to present the bears as anything other than terrifying IMO. It's impossible as a human being to feel anything but panic whenever Treadwell gets close to one of them.

EDIT: Oooooooooooh I get it.

437

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODc3NTAxMTY1MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTE4NjUzMw@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

The balance Herzog manages to strike here is masterful. The doc clearly recognizes that Treadwell was a troubled, reckless, and, if we dispense with charity, moronic individual whose wildly egotistical view of his place in nature got him and his girlfriend killed; but at the same time there's this overwhelming empathy that comes forth whenever you see him interacting with the animals he so clearly loves. This disquieting character study also ends up being itself part of a larger philosophical meditation on the relationship of humans and nature and whether the universe is full of beauty or chaos or both. It's just such a compelling and haunting feat of filmmaking that's gnawing at me even as I type this. I don't have much intelligent or insightful to say because I'm sort of numb and emotionally overcome.

This, The New World, and The Descent are tied for my favorite film of 2005, and they form a trilogy of sorts that examines from wildly different angles what happens when humankind interferes with nature. The New World is, among other things, an oneiric, lyrical elegy to the natural world as it's polluted and spoiled by "civilization"; The Descent is, among other things, a slow immersion into hell fueled by the philosophical horror of our natural origins; and Grizzly Man is, among other things, a sort of bridge between the poles of this opposition, depicting nature in all its beauty and terror and refusing to answer which is the stronger of the two.

Yeah, I got dragged to it against my will and ended up just staring at the upper right corner of the screen for the last hour. I have never actually just stopped watching a movie in the theatre before but I couldn't take it.

There's a separate grammar to movie musicals than there is to stage musicals—at least, there is to the type of movie musical that Disney makes. Classic stage musicals are pervaded with song. Many of them are almost/entirely sung-through—Les Miserables, Sweeney Todd, The Phantom of the Opera, etc.—and even those that aren't will have musical numbers peppered liberally throughout their runtime. In this type of musical, songs are the default mode of expression—not every song will be as important as every other, simply because there are so many of them present. They're not events in and of themselves, though some of them will contain events.

The musical format of the Disney Renaissance film, by contrast, weighs its songs carefully. Of the three animated musicals that Alan Menken and Howard Ashman collaborated on prior to Ashman's death—The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin—none has more than half a dozen songs, reprises included. This scarcity in and of itself would amplify the impact that each song has, but it's not the only thing that does. Every single song in Menken and Ashman's animated collaborations is designed to crystallize a specific emotion or theme that's crucial to its film's narrative. In Les Miserables, when a character sings it is because music is their default mode of expression; in a Disney Renaissance musical, when a character sings we had better pay attention, because something important is happening.

For brevity's sake, I'll confine examples to the 1991 Beauty and the Beast:

- "Belle"—the opening number. It establishes perfectly not only its titular character's nature and desires but the circumstances that render her unable (as of yet) to attain her desires and that will later enable Gaston to stir up a mob against the Beast.
-  "Gaston"—what the former track does for its titular character this one does for its own, and then some. Its initial appearance firmly cements our impressions of Gaston and shows us just how enamored of him the town is; its reprise, following shortly thereafter, sets off his transformation from boor to outright villain.
- "Be Our Guest"—an explosion of color and kinetic motion that transforms the castle from solely foreboding to a place that has the potential to be wondrous and cause happiness.
- "Something There"—basically the crucial song of the entire movie, as it ultimately has to convince the audience that Belle and the Beast are organically moving from adversaries to friends.
- "Beauty and the Beast"—is almost equally crucial in that it has to give the final push from friendship to something more.
- "The Mob Song"—brings the themes of bigotry and, well, mob rule firmly to the fore and completes Gaston's transformation into a villain.

Sure, it's pedantic of me to lay out what anyone who's seen the film already knows, but my point is this: every single emotional and thematic beat that builds to the climax of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast is embedded in a song. It's possible to remove a certain number of songs from a sung-through musical and still have its narrative as a whole stay upright. If you remove any single song from Beauty and the Beast, IT CANNOT BE A SUCCESSFUL NARRATIVE.

Why am I hammering so heavily on this point? Because the fact that those half-dozen songs are the emotional and thematic skeleton of Beauty and the Beast means that there's only a very certain way in which that film can proceed. Events have to unfold in a certain order across a certain timespan in order to match the emotional/thematic journey; if they don't, the film's narrative body doesn't match its skeleton, which is a painful place to be in.

Fortunately for all involved, the narrative totality of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast hangs on its musical skeleton pretty damn near perfectly. It's compact and it's balanced, progressing events just enough in between musical beats that we feel we've undergone a complete emotional journey without having had our time wasted. However, that's a really tough tightrope to walk successfully, and any deviations, no matter how slight, risk sending the film tumbling from on high.

So when I heard that the live-action Beauty and the Beast would be using the Menken-Ashman songs, I got nervous. Because there are really only two possible outcomes once you've committed to that creative decision. Either you follow basically to the letter the path of the 1991 film—in which case, why are you making a new movie at all? or you start to drift further and further away from your skeleton—which doesn't feel good and can leave you falling limply all over the ground.

I kept shaking my head the deeper into the movie I got, because the 2017 Beauty and the Beast has absolutely no idea what to do with its story beats. It already has a very narrowly defined path to walk in order to keep the beats that the songs encapsulate maximally effective, but it can't walk that path because it's trying to simultaneously ape its source material in order to trigger audience nostalgia AND to be its own thing. And rather than take a look at how important, how fucking crucial, the narrative structure of its source material is, and realize it has to either confine itself solely to that structure or drastically rethink how it's going to approach this remake, the film makes the worst possible compromise and tries to be "its own thing" by stretching its namesake's 84 minutes to 129 and trying to shove additional material into that extra space.

Now, even just shoving simple filler in between song-beats would be enough to collapse the movie. Those songs depend on a very precise rhythm in order to be effective, and interrupting that rhythm with longer lengths of time dilutes its power just as much as if you were to take your favorite pop song and insert random blank spaces between every few drumbeats. But what Beauty and the Beast does is even more disruptive than that. Rather than simply injecting blank spaces into a pre-existing drum track, it starts running its own track on the off-beat, to fully complete this strained metaphor. It starts duplicating beats that have already been covered in the original narrative structure, or it starts throwing in new beats without encoding them in songs. And it's just. Disastrous.

We've already seen (well, we're supposed to have seen—more often than not the remake is shockingly incompetent when it comes to eliciting the same feelings as its source material) everything we need to know about the relationship between Belle and the townspeople in "Belle" the song—that emotional beat has been hit, and it's time to move on. Instead, the 2017 film inserts an additional scene of her teaching a little girl to read, only to have her laundry upset by angry neighbors. This is immediately followed by another duplicate beat in which Gaston is in general a boor about this matter of uppity women's book-larnin', which already occurred immediately following "Belle." Indeed, Gaston is the source of subsequent redundant beats throughout the film—where the animated movie establishes his slide into scheming villain with the end of the "Gaston" reprise, this one makes the frankly baffling decision to have him delay this moment to follow Maurice into the woods to look for Belle, then again repeat his being a boor about Belle, only this time with Maurice. We then, finally, get the moment of his slide from buffoonery to villainy when he ties Maurice to a tree and leaves him for dead, but wait! Maurice escapes and returns to the village, so his rejection by the townspeople for being crazy can happen again and Gaston's turn to wickedness can also happen again when he turns his reluctant father-in-law over to the madhouse.

There is so little purpose to these repeated beats that it's frankly baffling that they made it into the screenplay—until we remember that the film needs something to cut to in the midst of new Belle/Beast material. The problem is, not only can the film not come up with anything better to do to fill this space than to repeat itself over and over, the new Belle/Beast material is equally as disastrous because it can't inject itself properly into the original narrative skeleton established by the 1991 musical's songs. The biggest addition to the B/B story is a long scene in which the two of them travel to Paris via enchanted book so they can come to the realization that each has suffered the childhood loss of a mother. This is intended to further strengthen their relationship, but it's a jarringly false note for a number of reasons.

First is that the enchanted book itself, which appeared nowhere in the animated film, is also nowhere in this film except the one scene in which it's featured, and it's so clearly a clumsy bit of handwaving by a screenwriter who couldn't find an organic way to work the information about Our Couple's mothers into the script that it's frankly insulting. More important, however, the emotional payoff of that information is nonexistent. "Belle" the song features no information about the loss of Belle's mother being an important part of her character; she is defined by her love of learning and adventure and by the opposition to her surroundings that this causes. The film doesn't alter the song to include her absent mother as something that's been important to her, and it doesn't add a new song to cover that information either. Not that the latter would have been all that great either, because then we'd have yet another instance of a redundant beat—we've already defined Belle's character, why are we doing so again?

Indeed, inserting a new song to cover an emotional beat is something that the film does later on, when the Beast has a long and angsty soliloquy after he lets Belle leave the castle. The instinct here on the filmmakers' part is closer to correct, because they've at least recognized that the connection between emotion/theme and music is important. But it still falls flat, because it's interrupting the carefully established rhythm set by the 1991 movie. As the animated film rushes to its climax, its rhythm increases pace, with the "Mob Song" following close on the heels of "Beauty and the Beast" to ratchet up tension in the viewer. The Beast's anguish is communicated through a single roar because there's no time for anything more—not only would his launching into a song be a more overblown way of saying what can be communicated through a wordless scream, it would stop the film's escalating pace dead in the water. The 2017 film chooses to have the overblown monologue for drama's sake, and in the process achieves completely the opposite of what it wants to.

The same thing happens in a slighter, non-musical manner at the film's emotional climax, when the Beast lies dying, the rose loses its last petal, and the castle's servants transform fully into inanimate objects. There's a fine balance to be maintained here—if you're going to show the servants losing themselves, you have to do so quickly before cutting back to the dying Beast in order to maintain urgency. Instead, in a microcosm of the problem that cripples its entire narrative structure, the film chooses to give each of the key servants a dying monologue of sorts as he or she slowly becomes inanimate. It's an artificial way of increasing "drama" and adding "difference" from the source material that serves to completely undermine the emotion it's trying to convey. The same kind of microcosm can be found in numerous instances within the modified Menken-Ashman songs, which are subjected to added dance breaks and dramatic tempo changes for no real reason other than creating more spectacle. All these modifications end up doing is, Simmons-like, beating a cowbell out of time in order to disrupt a carefully established sequence of building events.

There are many other things wrong with the 2017 Beauty and the Beast. Its singing is pitch-shifted to hell and back; its aesthetic is a pretty unbearably ugly attempt to combine the gorgeous Gothic animation of the 1991 film with a modern, "realistic" look; it exchanges Howard Ashman's lyrics for inferior replacements for no discernible reason; its screenplay is on a line-to-line basis a godawful travesty that's maybe 1% subtext; the way it chooses to kill off Gaston transforms the moment from a death rooted in the character's nature to a needless deus ex machina. And of course there's the remarkably and frankly appallingly cynical decision on Disney's part to take a character who is coded with negative gay stereotypes, claim they're making him their FIRST OPENLY GAY CHARACTER in order to gather clicks, and then reduce the only instant of his actually being openly gay to a literally blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot in the midst of the film's conclusion, thus simultaneously rendering that character a case of shitty representation and for all intents and purposes not really representation at all.

But for me the single biggest problem for the film, the one that completely undoes its ability to function as a successful narrative, is its inability to understand successful rhythm. On a moment-to-moment basis, it robs scenes of their dramatic potential and drags songs down to no real purpose; when viewed as a totality, it takes what was a perfectly structured movie musical and turns it to boneless sludge.

Link to blog post.

440

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTUwNjUxMTM4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODExMDQzMTI@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

Teague is gonna have a fucking stroke.

I'm going to post further thoughts once I have the time to write a full length piece because this is the most aggressively useless movie maybe ever and I have feelings.


EDIT: Thoughts posted.

Oh shit, was that one before the transition? Apologies.

As a literature major myself, I resent the implication that we somehow aren't capable of understanding and writing SF. tongue

That said, agreed re: most television. FilmCritHulk wrote a great piece about the issue that contrasts Breaking Bad with Luke Cage to demonstrate how we've lost the art of episodic storytelling.

I'm obviously a huge fan of Breaking Bad, and I love Hannibal to death, but outside of those I don't invest much in modern TV because of this problem. The only current show I'm watching is Orphan Black, and it's a *huge* example of the problem described above--seasons 1 and 2 are pretty great television, but then season 3 is basically one episode's worth of content stretched over ten and season 4 can't really recover from that. I love the idea of extended storytelling as opposed to solely episodic work in principle, but it's really rare for it to be done well.

443

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT JUST HAPPENED MOONLIGHT YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTaRDS

444

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Don't do anything drastic, Teague.

445

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

SUICIDE SQUAD and FANTASTIC BEASTS now have more Oscars than THE WITCH, CAROL, and David Lynch. Fuck me.

446

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

^ If La La Land has to win, it had better at least be for "Audition" and not fucking "City of Stars".

447

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

At this point I'm watching solely because I need to see La La Land get beaten by Moonlight for Best Director (I'm resigned to the inferior film winning Best Picture), Manchester by the Sea for Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay, and Jackie for Best Actress and Original Score. I'm already irritated that it got fourteen nominations, but fourteen undeserved wins will have me actually seething. Which is a shame, because I liked the movie well enough even in spite of its bland songs and the stupid "Fusion isn't real jazz!" subplot.

Also, the fact that Silence was almost universally shut out is mind boggling. I can see why Scorsese is doing his next picture with Netflix, who needs this bullshit.

448

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

Huh. I haven't even heard of this movie.

Yeah, I'd been avoiding marketing anyway to go in blind as possible but I definitely didn't have to do too much avoiding. Perhaps the studio realized after it was made that it's not exactly blockbuster fare and tried to cut their losses on the marketing front—I'm a definite fan of the film but it's certainly not every mainstream viewer's cup of tea.

El Nameaux-Standardon wrote:

There's a loose continuity connecting the two, but they're essentially two standalones with entirely different high concepts; I guess the biker villains are somewhat similar.

Fair; a better analogy would probably be from Road Warrior to Fury Road.

449

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/a-cure-for-wellness/cureforwellnessposter.jpg

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

The unholy spawn of Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" (yes I know I used a different Poe story for the epigraph, deal with it), Lovecraft's "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family", and King's The Shining, A Cure for Wellness is not a movie a major studio should have greenlit and given a substantial budget to, especially coming off the heels of a disaster as infamous as The Lone Ranger. That it exists is a minor miracle, and even if I didn't care for it I'd respect the hell out of Verbinski for getting it made (much the way I felt for Crimson Peak).

Fortunately, I did care for it, quite a bit. I'm not one who often says "Ignore the critics!" when something gets panned, but . . . this movie is kind of fucking awesome? It's not in the league of recent genuinely horrifying masterpieces such as The Babadook or The Witch, but it's not trying to accomplish the same things they were—its goal isn't to get under your skin but to stage a lavish masque of neo-Gothic melodrama complete with dubious sexual arrangements and medieval family embarrassments, and it does so with flair. It's surprising, not in that we couldn't see certain plot elements coming, but that we don't see them coming simply because there's no fucking way Verbinski could get away with that in a major motion picture, is there? But he does, and does, and does.

Is it great cinema? Well, not in one sense. But it's a hell of a lot of fun, and unlike Verbinski's latter-day Pirates films isn't at all negatively impacted by its sprawling length. My one major complaint is the digital photography—unless one is careful, the shiny, plastic sheen digital tends to lend to images can leak the atmosphere out of a shot like nothing else. Some horror films avoid it—The Babadook was shot on digital and remains steeped in German Impressionist charcoal ambience—but alas, A Cure is occasionally neutered by this artificial gloss, particularly in its first half. Ah well, no great matter. It's a mere quibble with a Gothic fevre dream that's otherwise a corker of a ride, never allowing its ambitions to drag down the melodramatic flair that carries it along.

450

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://i2.wp.com/teaser-trailer.com/wp-content/uploads/John-Wick-2-Keanu-Reeves-The-Sequel-to-John-Wick.jpg?ssl=1

Laurence Fishburne in John Wick 2 >>>>>>>>> the entirety of John Wick.

I'm on board with the first film—there are some great action setpieces, and the almost magical-realist world of the assassin society it establishes is great—but there's no denying that it's structurally unsound and has a pretty poor script. The jump from that outing to this one is comparable to the difference between Mad Max and The Road Warrior. This movie is a perfect example of a sequel taking the foundation laid by its predecessor and building upon it in the best possible ways. The world of the hitmen gets even more off the wall and genuinely fascinating; and the director, fight choreographers, and DP fully embrace the neon-drenched cartoon that was hinted at in the first installment, turning the action into a balletic frenzy of violence that's simultaneously graceful and brutal. (The fight scenes here just further cemented in my mind what's wrong with the Star Wars prequels' approach to action—there's superhuman finesse and beauty to the violence in this film, but every punch is tangible and every bullet fired carries immense weight, thanks in no small part to the ear-splitting sound mixing.)

It's also incredibly smart with how it ups the stakes in ways that are rooted in the first film—there's a moment toward the end where I felt like gasping not because I was surprised, but because of what it meant and the consequences it carried knowing the rules of this universe.

So, yeah, he's back, in a big way. My second favorite film of the year so far behind 20th Century Women.

(Also, during the first five minutes about half a dozen people were yanked out of my showing, loudly protesting, under threat of arrest for reasons that I didn't catch. Huh.)